Filed: Aug. 22, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1283 TYRONE ANDREWS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. THOMAS P. DAVIS, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:09-cv-00297-BO) Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 22, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. Gra
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1283 TYRONE ANDREWS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. THOMAS P. DAVIS, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:09-cv-00297-BO) Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 22, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. Grad..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1283 TYRONE ANDREWS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. THOMAS P. DAVIS, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:09-cv-00297-BO) Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 22, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tyrone Andrews appeals the district court’s orders denying his various pretrial motions and a final order denying relief on his employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Andrews v. Davis, No. 5:09-cv-00297-BO (E.D.N.C. July 9, 2009; July 13, 2009; Jan. 19, 2011; Feb. 11, 2011; Feb. 23, 2011; March 4, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
